1: \documentclass[12pt]{article}
2: \usepackage{amsmath}
3: \usepackage{amssymb}
4: \usepackage{epsfig}
5: \usepackage{lscape}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8:
9: \begin{center}
10:
11: {\Large \bf Parton distributions from deep-inelastic-scattering data}
12:
13: \vspace{1cm}
14: {\bf S.~I.~Alekhin}
15:
16: \vspace{0.1in}
17: {\baselineskip=14pt Institute for High Energy Physics, 142281 Protvino, Russia}
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: We perform the analysis of existing light-targets
21: deep-inelastic-scattering (DIS) data
22: in the leading-order (LO), next-to-leading-order
23: (NLO), and next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) QCD approximations
24: and extract PDFs simultaneously with the value of the strong coupling constant
25: $\alpha_s$ and the high-twist contribution to the structure functions.
26: The main theoretical uncertainties and experimental uncertainties
27: due to all sources of experimental errors in data
28: are estimated, the latter generally dominate for the obtained PDFs.
29: The uncertainty in Higgs boson production cross section due to errors in PDFs
30: is $\sim 2$\% for the LHC and
31: varies from 2\% to 10\% for the Fermilab collider under variation of
32: the Higgs boson mass from $100~{\rm GeV}$ to $300~{\rm GeV}$.
33: For the $W$-boson production cross section the uncertainty is
34: $\sim 2$\% for the both colliders. The value of
35: $\alpha^{\rm NNLO}_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1143\pm 0.0014({\rm exp.})$
36: is obtained, while the high-twist terms
37: do not vanish up to the NNLO as required by comparison to data.
38: \end{abstract}
39: \end{center}
40: {\bf PACS numbers:} 13.60.Hb,06.20.Jr,12.38.Bx\\
41: {\bf Keywords:} deep inelastic scattering, parton distributions,
42: strong coupling constant, high twists
43:
44: \newpage
45:
46: \section {Introduction}
47:
48: The deep-inelastic-scattering (DIS) data are used for extraction of
49: the parton distribution functions (PDFs) in nucleon starting
50: from the advent of the Bjorken scaling phenomena (for the most
51: recent studies see
52: Refs.~\cite{Barone:1999yv,Botje:1999dj,Alekhin:2001ch}).
53: However since new DIS data
54: appear permanently and the theoretical basis for their analysis
55: is being developed alongside, those analysis should be updated in order to
56: improve the experimental and theoretical errors on the extracted PDFs.
57: In this paper we give such update of the
58: next-to-leading-order (NLO) QCD analysis of
59: Ref.~\cite{Alekhin:2001ch} aimed to extract PDFs,
60: the high-twist (HT) contribution to the
61: structure functions $F_{2,\rm L}$, and the value of strong coupling
62: constant $\alpha_{\rm s}$
63: from the existing data on DIS of charged leptons off
64: the proton and deuterium targets.
65: One of the improvements of our analysis is replacement
66: of data by the H1 \cite{Aid:1996au} and
67: the ZEUS \cite{Derrick:1996hn} collaborations
68: by their more recent data \cite{Adloff:2000qk,Chekanov:2001qu}
69: obtained in the 1996-97 run of the HERA collider, when
70: these experiments accumulated about 5 times more events than before.
71: Another improvement is account of the NNLO QCD corrections, which
72: have been known with a good precision after calculation of
73: the Mellin moments of the NNLO splitting functions up to
74: 14-th~\cite{Retey:2000nq}. This new input significantly decreases the
75: uncertainty of PDFs due to the higher-orders (HO) QCD
76: corrections~\cite{vanNeerven:2000wp,Alekhin:2001ih} and
77: together with more precise data allows to
78: produce the NLO and NNLO PDFs sets with reduced total uncertainty.
79:
80: The particular features of the analysis \cite{Alekhin:2001ch}
81: as compared to the global fits of Refs.\cite{Pumplin:2002vw,Martin:2001es}
82: are:
83: \begin{itemize}
84:
85: \item data on the differential cross sections are used that allows to
86: use experimental constraints on the structure function $F_{\rm L}$;
87:
88: \item corrections for the effects of target mass (TM) and for the nuclear
89: effects in deuteron are applied to the data, the both were calculated
90: in the fits iteratively using the current PDFs;
91:
92: \item comprehensive account of the experimental errors and
93: their correlations is performed;
94:
95: \item impact of main sources of the theoretical errors is analyzed.
96:
97: \end{itemize}
98:
99: All these features are also kept in the present analysis.
100:
101: \begin{landscape}
102: \begin{table}
103: \caption{The numbers of data points (NDP) for
104: separate experiments and the corresponding renormalization shifts $\xi$
105: obtained in different fits.}
106: \begin{center}
107: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
108: &\multicolumn{4}{c}{proton} &\multicolumn{4}{c}{deuterium}
109: \\ \cline{2-5} \cline{6-9}
110: Experiment&NDP&\multicolumn{3}{c}{$\xi$[\%]}&NDP&\multicolumn{3}{c}{$\xi$[\%]}
111: \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{7-9}
112: &&LO&NLO&NNLO&&LO&NLO&NNLO \\ \hline
113: SLAC-E-49A &58 &$2.9 \pm 1.4$&$1.6\pm1.4$&$1.1\pm1.4$ &58 &$0.0 \pm 1.3$&$-1.3\pm1.3$&$-1.7\pm1.3$ \\
114: SLAC-E-49B &144&$3.2 \pm 1.4$&$1.8\pm1.4$&$1.2\pm1.4$&135&$0.5 \pm 1.4$&$-0.8\pm1.4$&$-1.3\pm1.4$ \\
115: SLAC-E-87 &90&$2.9 \pm 1.4$&$1.8\pm1.4$&$1.2\pm1.4$&90&$0.7 \pm 1.3$&$-0.5\pm1.3$&$-0.9\pm1.3$ \\
116: SLAC-E-89A &66&$5.6 \pm 1.9$&$4.0\pm1.9$&$3.1\pm1.9$&59&$2.3 \pm 2.0$&$0.5\pm2.0$&$-0.3\pm2.0$ \\
117: SLAC-E-89B &79&$2.6 \pm 1.3$&$1.2\pm1.4$&$0.7\pm1.4$&62&$-0.2 \pm 1.3$&$-1.4\pm1.3$&$-1.9\pm1.4$ \\
118: SLAC-E-139 &&&&&16&$1.6 \pm 1.3$&$0.2\pm1.3$&$-0.2\pm1.3$ \\
119: SLAC-E-140 &&&&&26&&& \\
120: BCDMS &351&&&&254&&& \\
121: NMC(90 GeV) &46&$-1.5 \pm 1.6$&$-1.4\pm1.5$&$-1.3\pm1.6$&46&$-2.6 \pm 1.5$&$-3.0\pm1.5$&$-2.9\pm1.5$ \\
122: NMC(120 GeV) &59&$-0.2 \pm 1.5$&$0.2\pm1.5$&$0.4\pm1.5$&59&$-1.3 \pm 1.5$&$-1.6\pm1.4$&$-1.5\pm1.5$ \\
123: NMC(200 GeV) &66&$2.1 \pm 1.5$&$1.9\pm1.4$&$2.0\pm1.4$&66&$0.0 \pm 1.4$&$-0.3\pm1.4$&$-0.3\pm1.4$ \\
124: NMC(280 GeV) &74&$1.3 \pm 1.4$&$0.9\pm1.4$&$0.8\pm1.4$&74&$-1.1 \pm 1.4$&$-1.4\pm1.4$&$-1.4\pm1.4$ \\
125: H1 &135&&&&&&& \\
126: ZEUS &161&&&&&&& \\
127: \end{tabular}
128: \end{center}
129: \label{tab:ndp}
130: \normalsize
131: \end{table}
132: \end{landscape}
133:
134: \section{Theoretical and experimental input of the fit}
135:
136: The model for data description is based on perturbative QCD
137: with phenomenological parameterization of the LT and
138: HT contributions to the structure functions $F_{\rm 2,L}$.
139: The analysis was performed in the ${\overline{\rm MS}}$
140: scheme with the number of flavors
141: fixed at 3.
142: The LT PDFs are parameterized at $Q^2_0=9~{\rm GeV}^2$ in the following form:
143: \begin{equation}
144: xu_{\rm V}(x,Q_0)=\frac{2}{N^{\rm V}_{\rm u}}
145: x^{a_{\rm u}}(1-x)^{b_{\rm u}}(1+\gamma_2^{\rm u}x),
146: \label{eqn:pdf1}
147: \end{equation}
148: \begin{equation}
149: xu_{\rm S}(x,Q_0)=\frac{A_{\rm S}}{N_{\rm S}}
150: \eta_{\rm u} x^{a_{\rm s}}(1-x)^{b_{\rm su}},
151: \end{equation}
152: \begin{equation}
153: xd_{\rm V}(x,Q_0)=\frac{1}{N^{\rm V}_{\rm d}}x^{a_{\rm d}}(1-x)^{b_{\rm d}},
154: \end{equation}
155: \begin{equation}
156: xd_{\rm S}(x,Q_0)=\frac{A_{\rm S}}{N^{\rm S}}x^{a_{\rm s}}(1-x)^{b_{\rm sd}},
157: \end{equation}
158: \begin{equation}
159: xs_{\rm S}(x,Q_0)=\frac{A_{\rm S}}{N^{\rm S}}\eta_{\rm s}
160: x^{a_{\rm s}}(1-x)^{(b_{\rm su}+b_{\rm sd})/2},
161: \end{equation}
162: \begin{equation}
163: xG(x,Q_0)=A_{\rm G}x^{a_{\rm G}}(1-x)^{b_{\rm G}}
164: (1+\gamma^{\rm G}_1\sqrt{x}+\gamma^{\rm G}_2 x),
165: \label{eqn:pdf2}
166: \end{equation}
167: where $u,d,s,G$ are the up, down, strange quarks,
168: and gluons distributions respectively;
169: indices $V$ and $S$ correspond to the valence
170: and sea quarks. The parameters $N^{\rm V}_{\rm u}, N^{\rm V}_{\rm d}$ and
171: $A_{\rm G}$ were calculated
172: from the other parameters using conservation of the partons momentum
173: and the fermion number. The
174: normalization parameter $N^{\rm S}$ is selected in such way that
175: $A_{\rm S}$ gives the total momentum carried by the sea quarks.
176: The parameter $\eta_{\rm s}$ was fixed at 0.42, in agreement with
177: the results of NuTeV collaboration~\cite{Adams:1999sx}.
178: The rest of parameters
179: coming to Eqns.(\ref{eqn:pdf1}--\ref{eqn:pdf2}) were fitted to the data,
180: we convinced that no extra parameters are needed to improve the
181: data description.
182: The HT contributions to the fitted structure functions $F_{\rm 2,L}$ were
183: parameterized in additive form
184: $$
185: F_{\rm 2,L}=F_{\rm 2,L}^{\rm LT,TMC}+\frac{H_{\rm 2,L}(x)}{Q^2},
186: $$
187: where $F_{\rm 2,L}^{\rm LT,TMC}$ are the LT terms with account of the
188: TM correction\footnote{See
189: Ref.~\protect\cite{Alekhin:2001ch} for detailed formula.}
190: and functions $H(x)$ are parameterized in the piece-linear form
191: and fitted to the data.
192:
193: \begin{table}
194: \caption{The values of $\chi^2/{\rm NDP}$ for different fits
195: and of the averages of residuals $R$ for the NLO fit
196: together with their standard deviations $\Delta R$
197: for separate data sets used in the analysis.}
198: \begin{center}
199: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
200: &NDP& \multicolumn{3}{c}{$\chi^2$/NDP} &$R(\Delta R)$ \\ \cline{3-5}
201: Experiment& &LO&NLO&NNLO &\\ \hline
202: SLAC-E-49A &115 &0.54&0.52&0.52 &$-0.04(0.23)$\\
203: SLAC-E-49B &279 &1.27&1.20&1.21 &$0.23(0.29)$ \\
204: SLAC-E-87 &180 &0.96&0.92&0.91 &$0.01(0.37)$\\
205: SLAC-E-89A &125 &1.35&1.33&1.36 &$-0.18(0.45)$ \\
206: SLAC-E-89B &141 &0.94&0.82&0.81 &$0.47(0.49)$\\
207: SLAC-E-139 &16 &0.81&0.58&0.62 &$-0.07(0.43)$ \\
208: SLAC-E-140 &26 &1.31&0.94&0.90 &$0.17(0.86)$ \\
209: BCDMS &605 &1.15&1.13&1.12 &$-0.06(0.68)$\\
210: NMC &490 &1.35&1.24&1.24 &$-0.06(0.39)$\\
211: H1(96-97) &135 &1.39&0.97&1.09 &$0.42(0.55)$\\
212: ZEUS(96-97) &161 &1.54&1.32&1.28 &$-0.55(0.64)$\\ \hline
213: TOTAL &2274 &1.20&1.11&1.11 &$0.01(0.22)$\\
214: \end{tabular}
215: \label{tab:chi}
216: \end{center}
217: \end{table}
218:
219: The code used to evolve these distributions was used earlier in
220: the analysis of Ref.~\cite{Alekhin:2001ih}.
221: This code was checked against Les Houches benchmark of Ref.\cite{Giele:2002hx}
222: and demonstrated accuracy much better than experimental precision
223: of the analyzed data.
224: A brief description of the data sets used in the analysis
225: is given in Table~\ref{tab:ndp}.
226: We cut data with $Q^2<2.5~{\rm GeV}^2$, $Q^2>300~{\rm GeV}^2$,
227: and $x>0.75$ in order to
228: minimize effects of the higher-order QCD corrections,
229: electroweak interference, and uncertainties in
230: the TM and deuteron corrections correspondingly.
231: All experimental uncertainties in data released by
232: authors were accounted for
233: in the analysis, including statistical errors and
234: correlated systematical errors
235: (in particular the general normalization errors).
236:
237: \begin{figure}
238: \centerline{\epsfig{file=pdf.ps,width=14cm,height=14cm}}
239: \caption{The experimental (statistical and systematical) errors bands for
240: the PDFs obtain in the LO (dots), NLO (dashes), and NNLO (full)
241: fits.}
242: \label{fig:pdf}
243: \end{figure}
244:
245: The total normalization of the NMC and most of the SLAC data subsets used in
246: our analysis were not determined in the experiments, instead they were
247: fitted by authors
248: to the results of other experiments. Since now we have more DIS data
249: than it was used in those fits, we perform
250: independent renormalization of the NMC and SLAC data subsets that allows
251: for more precise determination of the corresponding normalization factors.
252: Following the approaches adopted by those
253: experimental groups we introduce an additional
254: normalization parameter for each beam energy and target in the NMC data set
255: and for each experiment and target in the SLAC data sets.
256: The data from SLAC-E-140 experiment, which was performed
257: with particular attention paid to the
258: accurate determination of the absolute normalization, were not renormalized
259: -- we accounted for its general normalization
260: error given by the authors in the same way as the other
261: correlated systematic errors.
262: The same approach was used for treatment of the general normalization
263: error in the BCDMS, H1, and ZEUS data.
264: The normalization factors for the SLAC and NMC data
265: are given in Table~\ref{tab:ndp}
266: for the fits performed in the LO, NLO, and NNLO approximations.
267: In the LO fit the shifts for the SLAC deuterium sets
268: deviate off zero by about two standard deviations,
269: while for the NNLO fit they vanish, i.e.
270: account of the higher-order corrections
271: decreases tension between the different data sets
272: (evidently, this effect is less pronounced for the NMC data than for the SLAC
273: one since the later correspond to
274: the lower values of $Q$, where these corrections are more important).
275: In average, renormalization of the SLAC data sets in the NLO fit is
276: $\sim +2$\% for the proton and $\sim -0.5$\% for the deuterium targets.
277: For the NMC data the corresponding values also are different and, besides,
278: vary with the beam energy that justifies application
279: of the flexible renormalization scheme for this experiment.
280: Note that in particular due to this flexible renormalization we obtain
281: satisfactory description of the NMC data in the NLO:
282: $\chi^2/{\rm NDP}$=1.24 in contrast with value 1.5
283: obtained in the fit of Ref.~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw}.
284: The values of $\chi^2/{\rm NDP}$ obtained in different orders of QCD are given
285: in Table~\ref{tab:chi}. One can see that quality of the fit is approximately
286: the same for the NLO and NNLO fits and much worse for the LO fit.
287:
288: \begin{figure}
289: \centerline{\epsfig{file=err.ps,width=14cm,height=12cm}}
290: \caption{Impact of changes in the data set on the NLO PDFs and their errors.
291: Full lines: relative experimental errors
292: in our PDFs; dashes: the same for the PDFs of
293: Ref.~\protect{\cite{Alekhin:2001ch}}; dots: the same for the CTEQ6 PDFs.}
294: \label{fig:err}
295: \end{figure}
296:
297: \section {PDFs and their experimental errors}
298: \label{sec:pdfexp}
299:
300: The PDFs obtained from the fits in different pQCD orders
301: with their total experimental uncertainties are
302: given in Fig.\ref{fig:pdf}, the PDFs parameters
303: are given in Table~\ref{tab:pars}.
304: One can see that the shift between
305: the NLO and NNLO PDFs is generally within their experimental errors
306: excluding the sea quarks distribution at small $x$. The LO
307: gluon distribution at small $x$ and valence quarks distributions
308: at moderate $x$ are very different from the corresponding NLO and NNLO PDFs.
309: This difference cannot be completely ascribed to the re-definition of
310: PDFs in different orders since data are poorly described by pQCD in the LO.
311: Fitted LO PDFs are evidently
312: distorted due to inaccount of the HO corrections and this distortion
313: should be taken into account in calculation of other
314: hard processes in the LO approximation. The PDFs errors
315: consecutively fall from LO to NNLO due to additional terms
316: of the perturbative expansions put additional constraints on
317: the fitted values. This effect is most pronounced for the gluon distribution
318: at large $x$. The comparison with experimental uncertainties
319: in the NLO PDFs obtained from our earlier analysis of
320: Ref.~\cite{Alekhin:2001ch} is given in Fig.\ref{fig:err}. The main
321: improvement is in precision of the gluon distribution
322: at small $x$ due to more precise HERA data have been used.
323: The total experimental errors can be conventionally split into 3
324: components: the uncorrelated, general normalization,
325: and correlated errors (excluding normalization ones).
326: The normalization errors can also be considered as correlated ones, but
327: we separate them for the purpose of comparison
328: since very often the normalization errors are accounted
329: for in a peculiar way or not accounted for at all.
330: In our analysis the normalization errors for BCDMS, H1, and ZEUS data sets
331: are included in the general covariance matrix, while for SLAC and NMC
332: data sets they appear through the error matrix of the fitted parameters.
333: Ratios of the correlated errors to the uncorrelated ones
334: and of the normalization errors to the correlated ones for different PDFs
335: are given in Fig.\ref{fig:pdfsys}. One can see that for most of PDFs
336: the correlated errors are more important at small $x$. The normalization
337: errors are largest at large $x$; in this region
338: they give main contribution to the total experimental uncertainties in PDFs.
339:
340: \begin{figure}
341: \centerline{\epsfig{file=pdfsys.ps,width=14cm,height=12cm}}
342: \caption{Ratios of the correlated systematic errors to the uncorrelated ones
343: (upper panel) and of the normalization errors to the correlated ones
344: (lower panel) for different PDFs (full curves: gluons;
345: dashes: sea quarks; dots: $d$-quarks, dashed-dots: $u$-quarks).}
346: \label{fig:pdfsys}
347: \end{figure}
348:
349: \begin{landscape}
350: \begin{table}
351: \caption{The values of the fitted parameters of the PDFs.}
352: \begin{center}
353: \begin{tabular}{cccccc}
354: & &LO & NLO &\multicolumn{2}{c}{NNLO}\\ \cline{5-6}
355: & & & &(A+B)/2& B \\\hline
356: Valence &&&&& \\
357: &$a_{\rm u}$&$0.551\pm0.085$ &$0.700\pm0.030$&$0.725\pm0.027$ &$0.725\pm0.026$\\
358: &$b_{\rm u}$&$3.672\pm0.042 $ &$3.920\pm0.050$&$4.024\pm0.050$ &$4.011\pm0.050$\\
359: &$\gamma_2^{\rm u}$&$3.0\pm1.7 $ &$1.14\pm0.39$&$1.05\pm0.35$ &$1.01\pm0.34$\\
360: &$a_{\rm d}$&$0.639\pm0.047 $ &$0.722\pm0.082$&$0.772\pm0.074$ &$0.818\pm0.062$\\
361: &$b_{\rm d}$&$4.48\pm0.23 $ &$4.94\pm0.12$&$5.14\pm0.15$ &$5.22\pm0.18$\\
362: Glue &&&& &\\
363: &$a_{\rm G}$&$-0.302\pm0.021 $ &$-0.146\pm0.018$&$-0.128\pm0.021$ &$-0.096\pm0.020$\\
364: &$b_{\rm G}$&$5.3\pm5.1 $ &$8.2\pm1.3$&$9.4\pm1.1$ &$9.8\pm1.0$\\
365: &$\gamma_1^{\rm G}$&$-1.94\pm0.83 $ &$-3.76\pm0.45$&$-3.84\pm0.52$ &$-4.18\pm0.45$\\
366: &$\gamma_2^{\rm G}$&$2.8\pm5.3 $ &$7.7\pm1.7$&$8.6\pm1.7$ &$9.2\pm1.5$\\
367: Sea &&&& &\\
368: &$A_{\rm S}$&$0.161\pm0.013 $ &$0.160\pm0.011$&$0.1591\pm0.0090$&$0.1545\pm0.0071$\\
369: &$a_{sd}$& $-0.1980\pm0.0057 $&$-0.1968\pm0.0048$&$-0.2092\pm0.0044$&$-0.2086\pm0.0043$\\
370: &$b_{\rm sd}$&$3.8\pm1.1 $ &$5.1\pm1.4$&$5.6\pm1.3$&$6.5\pm1.1$\\
371: &$\eta_{\rm u}$&$1.46\pm0.15 $ &$1.16\pm0.12$&$1.12\pm0.11$&$1.036\pm0.099$\\
372: &$b_{\rm su}$&$9.2\pm1.8 $ &$10.16\pm0.93$&$10.49\pm0.90$&$10.43\pm0.89$\\
373: &&&& &\\
374: \end{tabular}
375: \end{center}
376: \label{tab:pars}
377: \end{table}
378: \end{landscape}
379:
380: \begin{figure}
381: \centerline{\epsfig{file=excl.ps,width=14cm,height=12cm}}
382: \caption{Relative increase of the experimental errors in our NLO PDFs
383: due to rejection of different data sets from the fit
384: (full curves: BCDMS data are rejected; dashes: HERA ones; dots: SLAC ones;
385: dashed-dots: NMC ones).}
386: \label{fig:excl}
387: \end{figure}
388:
389: Impact of each data set on the precision of our PDFs
390: is demonstrated in Fig.\ref{fig:excl}. The HERA data are crucial for
391: determination of the gluon and quarks distributions at small $x$;
392: the BCDMS data constraint the quark distributions at large x;
393: the NMC data are essential for determination of the anti-quarks
394: and $d$-quark distributions at large $x$; and the SLAC data
395: improve precision of the $d$-quark and gluon distributions at large x.
396: In summary none of the subsets
397: can be dropped out without deterioration of the PDFs precision.
398: We also checked how sensitive are the errors in PDFs to
399: the inclusion in fit the ZEUS data of Ref.~\cite{Chekanov:2001qu}
400: with $Q^2>250~{\rm GeV}^2$, the H1 data of
401: Ref.~\cite{Adloff:1999ah} with $Q^2>150~{\rm GeV}^2$,
402: and the FNAL-E-665 data of Ref.~\cite{Adams:1996gu}. If one applies to these
403: data our regular kinematical cuts $Q^2>2.5~{\rm GeV}^2$ and $x<0.75$,
404: the relative suppression of the PDFs errors after each of
405: these data sets has been included does not exceed 0.9 and therefore they
406: are useless for the PDFs determination.
407:
408: \begin{figure}
409: \centerline{\epsfig{file=h1.ps,width=14cm,height=14cm}}
410: \caption{The experimental error bands for $F_2^p$ calculated
411: using our NLO PDFs (full curves) compared to the
412: H1 data used in the fit.
413: Figures at the curves are values of $Q^2$ in units of GeV$^2$.
414: For better view the factor of
415: $x^{0.2}$ and vertical shifts are applied to the data points and curves.
416: The same bands calculated using the A99 PDFs are also given
417: for comparison (dashed curves).}
418: \label{fig:h1}
419: \end{figure}
420: \begin{figure}
421: \centerline{\epsfig{file=zeus.ps,width=14cm,height=14cm}}
422: \caption{The same as Fig.\protect\ref{fig:h1} for the ZEUS data
423: used in the fit.}
424: \label{fig:zeus}
425: \end{figure}
426:
427: The novel HERA data used in our fit is confronted with the fitted curves
428: in Figs.\ref{fig:h1},\ref{fig:zeus}.
429: For comparison we show in the same figures the calculations
430: based on our earlier PDFs of Ref.\cite{Alekhin:2001ch}. The
431: experimental error bands for both sets of PDFs overlap that proves stability
432: of the analysis. If the fit is unbiased,
433: the fitted curve and data should coincide modulo
434: statistical fluctuations. These fluctuations are quantified by
435: the average of residuals $R=<(f-y)/e>$,
436: where $f$ is the fitted function, $y$ is
437: measurement, and $e$ is the total experimental error in data.
438: The standard deviation of this average $\Delta R$
439: is $\sim 1/\sqrt{NDP}$ for data set with uncorrelated points.
440: If data are correlated, coherent shift of the fitted curve
441: within the value of common systematic error in data is allowed
442: and value of $\Delta R$ gets larger, up to 1 for the case of strong
443: correlations. Therefore the
444: value of $\Delta R$ can be used as a crude indicator of
445: significance of correlations in data set.
446: In our analysis $\Delta R$ is largest for the BCDMS and SLAC-E-140 data
447: (see Table~\ref{tab:chi}). Since
448: magnitudes of $R$ are well within $\Delta R$ both for all subsets and
449: for the total set we conclude that our fit is unbiased.
450: Despite the systematic errors are not necessarily Gaussian distributed
451: the value of $\chi/NDP=1.1$ obtained in our fit proves that this
452: is good approximation in our case. Distribution of the
453: diagonalized residuals (DRs), which are the
454: components of the vector of residuals $(f-y)/e$
455: multiplied by the square root of the inverse covariance
456: matrix is plotted in Fig.\ref{fig:res}. If the errors obey the Gaussian
457: distribution the distribution of DRs have to be normal~\cite{Alekhin:2000es}
458: and as one can see in Fig.\ref{fig:res} this is the case for our fit.
459: Therefore all errors are Gaussian in good approximation and
460: consequently the errors in fitted parameters are Gaussian
461: too\footnote{The width of the DRs distribution is 1.05
462: that is marginally larger than
463: the width of the normal one; for this reason rescaling
464: of the errors in spirit of the PDG's procedure would lead to
465: negligible effect.}.
466:
467: \begin{figure}
468: \centerline{\epsfig{file=res.ps,width=14cm,height=8cm}}
469: \caption{Distribution of the diagonalized residuals in our NLO fit.
470: The curve superimposed gives normal distribution.}
471: \label{fig:res}
472: \end{figure}
473:
474: \section {The PDFs theoretical uncertainties}
475:
476: With experimental errors in PDFs permanently reduced due to
477: to more relevant data appear the theoretical errors become more
478: dominating contribution to the total PDFs uncertainty.
479: In study of the importance of theoretical uncertainties
480: the experimental errors serve as a natural scale.
481: The variations below this scale can be neglected and, moreover,
482: they just can occur due to statistical fluctuations in data.
483: For this reason we analyzed only the theoretical errors,
484: which give effect larger or comparable to the experimental ones.
485:
486: \subsection{Uncertainty due to higher order QCD corrections}
487:
488: \begin{figure}
489: \centerline{\epsfig{file=rs.ps,width=14cm,height=8cm}}
490: \caption{Perturbative stability of the gluon distribution at small $x$.
491: The corresponding RS error $\Delta_{RS}$ in the NLO and NNLO is given for
492: comparison.}
493: \label{fig:pdf_order}
494: \end{figure}
495:
496: The uncertainty in PDFs due to the HO QCD corrections
497: is not an uncertainty in full sense because the
498: PDFs differ from order to order just by definition.
499: Nevertheless the variation of
500: PDFs with the pQCD order is of practical importance
501: for estimation of the HO QCD uncertainties in the hard cross sections,
502: which are calculated using the PDFs, despite the variation of the
503: cross section value due to the HO corrections to PDFs
504: can be in some cases partially compensated by
505: the HO corrections to the corresponding coefficient functions.
506: A common approach used for estimation of the HO errors
507: in the analysis of DIS data is to vary the QCD renormalization scale (RS)
508: and factorization scale (FS) from $Q^2$ to $4Q^2$.
509: Evidently, since the range of this variation is
510: arbitrary and no $x$-dependence of the scale factors
511: is assumed, this approach gives only semi-qualitative estimate on the HO
512: uncertainty.
513: Having the PDFs at different pQCD orders we can verify this approach
514: comparing the real variation of PDFs from order to order
515: with the HO errors estimated using the variation of the pQCD scales.
516: Example of such comparison is given in Fig.\ref{fig:pdf_order}.
517: One can see that the real change of the gluon
518: distribution from the NLO to the NNLO is much smaller than
519: the RS error at small $x$. With the FS errors taken into account the
520: difference would get even larger. Adjustment of the range of the scale
521: variation would also not help since the signs of
522: the NLO-NNLO difference and the RS error are opposite at $x\sim 0.01$.
523: Note that the RS error in gluon distribution almost does not
524: decrease from the NLO to the NNLO. This means that
525: if the perturbative expansion does converge the discrepancy between
526: the NNLO RS error and the change of gluon distribution
527: from the NNLO to the NNNLO is even larger. For this reason
528: we recommend to use the difference between NLO and NNLO PDFs
529: as estimate of the HO uncertainty motivated by the
530: properties of the asymptotic expansions.
531: The NNLO PDFs have an additional source of errors
532: due to possible variation of the NNLO kernel.
533: The magnitude of these errors is largest at small $x$, but even in this region
534: they are smaller than the experimental errors (see Fig.\ref{fig:pdfnnlo}).
535:
536: \begin{figure}
537: \centerline{\epsfig{file=pdfnnlo.ps,width=14cm,height=14cm}}
538: \caption{The NNLO PDFs obtained with the different choices of the
539: NNLO kernel (full lines: 1$\sigma$ experimental bands
540: for the nominal fit; dashes: fit with the NNLO kernel modified within
541: the allowed uncertainty given in Ref.\protect\cite{vanNeerven:2000wp}).}
542: \label{fig:pdfnnlo}
543: \end{figure}
544:
545: \subsection{Uncertainties due to the heavy quarks contribution}
546:
547: \subsubsection{Variation of the factorization scheme}
548: \label{sec:VFN}
549:
550: In our analysis contribution of the $c$- and $b$-quarks was calculated
551: in the fixed-flavor-number (FFN) scheme using
552: the photon-gluon fusion mechanism~\cite{Witten:bh} with account of the
553: NLO QCD correction~\cite{Laenen:1992xs}. Since
554: the heavy-quark contribution rises with $Q$ rapidly
555: the FFN scheme without resummation of large logs
556: is irrelevant
557: at small $x$ and $Q$ much larger than the quark mass~\cite{Shifman:1977yb}.
558: In order to overcome this difficulty
559: the variable-flavor-number (VFN) scheme was proposed
560: \cite{Collins:mp}. In the VFN scheme
561: the heavy quarks are considered as massless and are included
562: in the QCD evolution at $Q=m_{c,b,t}$, where $m_{c,b,t}$ are the masses
563: of $c$-, $b$-, and $t$-quark correspondingly.
564: The VFN scheme does include resummation of large logs, but
565: at the same time evidently overestimates the heavy-quarks distributions
566: at $Q$ close to the thresholds. Nevertheless this scheme
567: is widely used in practice
568: due to it allows for to greatly simplify the calculation of processes with
569: the heavy quarks involved. The FFN scheme is appropriate
570: in our case since the heavy-quarks contribution
571: is concentrated at small $x$, while the small $x$ data used in our analysis
572: correspond to the values of $Q$, which are not very far from the
573: threshold of heavy quarks production. Nevertheless in order
574: to lighten implementation of our PDFs in different calculations
575: we generated the VFN PDFs using our FFN PDFs as input. For this purpose
576: we evolved our PDFs from our boundary value of $Q_0^2=9~{\rm GeV}^2$
577: to $Q=m_c$ in the FFN scheme and used the obtained PDFs
578: as the boundary condition for the VFN evolution.
579: The obtained VFN distributions of $c$- and $b$-quarks in the NLO are given
580: in Fig.\ref{fig:vfn} in comparison with
581: the corresponding contributions to the structure function $F_2$
582: calculated in the FFN scheme and weighted for the quarks charges.
583: At large $Q$ the FFN scheme gives results similar to the VFN ones
584: at the values of
585: $x$ feasible by future hadron colliders. At low $Q$ the VFN
586: scheme gives sizeable overestimation of the heavy-quark distributions,
587: especially for the $b$-quarks. For this reason the certain caution is
588: necessary in use of the VFN PDFs
589: at small $Q$ (see also Ref.~\cite{Gluck:1993dp} in this connection).
590:
591: \begin{figure}
592: \centerline{\epsfig{file=vfn.ps,width=14cm,height=8cm}}
593: \caption{The $c$- and $b$-quarks distributions in the VFN scheme
594: (dashed curves) compared to the corresponding FFN
595: contributions to the structure function $F_2$
596: weighted with the quarks charges (full curves).
597: The figures at the curves give the values of $Q^2$ in GeV$^2$;
598: the range of $x$ for a given $Q^2$ is typical for the processes
599: studied at the Fermilab and LHC colliders.}
600: \label{fig:vfn}
601: \end{figure}
602:
603: \subsubsection{Uncertainty due the error in heavy quarks masses}
604:
605: This uncertainty is estimated as the variation of PDFs under the change of
606: $m_{\rm c}$ from $1.5~{\rm GeV}$ to $1.75~{\rm GeV}$, i.e. within
607: the error in its value estimated from other measurements.
608: The magnitude of corresponding
609: uncertainties in PDFs decreases from the LO to the NNLO since the
610: HO PDFs are smoother at small $x$ and variation of the photon-gluon fusion
611: cross section gets less sensitive to the shift of the kinematical
612: variables. The ratio of its magnitude
613: to the PDFs experimental errors in the NLO is given in Fig.\ref{fig:th}.
614: The ratio is generally less than 1.5 being most important for the
615: sea quarks distribution at small $x$. The similar ratio for
616: uncertainty due to variation of the $b$-quark mass is negligible for
617: all PDFs.
618:
619: \begin{figure}
620: \centerline{\epsfig{file=th.ps,width=14cm,height=12cm}}
621: \caption{The ratio of magnitude of the uncertainty due to
622: errors in the $c$-quark mass (upper panel)
623: and the strange sea suppression factor (lower panel) to the experimental
624: errors in NLO
625: PDFs (full lines: gluon distribution; dashes: non-strange sea one;
626: dots: d-quark one; dashed-dots: u-quark one).}
627: \label{fig:th}
628: \end{figure}
629:
630: \subsection{Uncertainty due to variation of the strange sea
631: parameterization}
632:
633: The $s$-quark distribution equally contributes to all structure
634: functions of the charged leptons DIS and cannot be determined from these
635: data due to lack of constraints. Most precise
636: information about this distribution comes from the neutrino nucleon DIS data.
637: Its shape was determined by the NuTeV collaboration to be comparable to
638: the average of the $u$- and $d$-quarks distributions
639: and the total suppression factor of the $s$-quark distribution
640: $\eta_{\rm s}$ was found to be
641: $0.42\pm0.07 ({\rm stat.})\pm0.06 ({\rm syst.})$~\cite{Adams:1999sx}.
642: We estimate the uncertainty in PDFs due to error in the $s$-quark
643: distribution as change of the PDFs under
644: variation of $\eta_{\rm s}$ from 0.42 to 0.52.
645: This uncertainty marginally changes from the LO to the NNLO
646: and does not exceed
647: the PDFs experimental errors (see Fig.\ref{fig:th}).
648:
649: \subsection{Other theoretical errors}
650:
651: The list of possible
652: theoretical errors in PDFs is rather conventional. For example the
653: errors due to HT contribution
654: can be estimated as shift of the fitted PDFs under
655: addition to the power-like terms with the $x$-shape motivated by a
656: certain model considerations to the fitted function.
657: Alternatively, it can be accounted for by fitting possible HT contribution
658: in the model-independent form; in this case the
659: error due to the HT is combined with the total experimental error in PDFs.
660: Since the later approach is less subjective we use it in our analysis.
661: Similarly, we do not treat the error due to the
662: uncertainty in value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ as a separate theoretical error
663: since we fit $\alpha_{\rm s}$ simultaneously with other parameters.
664: In our previous analysis of Ref.~\cite{Alekhin:2001ch}
665: we considered the error due to uncertainty in the
666: heavy-quarks thresholds in the QCD renormalization group
667: equation for $\alpha_{\rm s}$. Now we omit this error
668: because it is generally negligible as compared to the experimental
669: errors and other theoretical errors.
670: The errors due to uncertainty in the nuclear effects in deuterium, which also
671: was considered in Ref.~\cite{Alekhin:2001ch},
672: will be analyzed in details elsewhere~\cite{AKL}.
673:
674: \section {High-twist contribution and the value of
675: \boldmath{$\alpha_{\rm s}$}}
676:
677: In the analysis of DIS data with relatively low $Q$
678: one needs to account for the HT terms due to these terms are
679: essential part of the operator product expansion \cite{Wilson:zs}.
680: The HT terms cannot be accurately
681: calculated from the existing theory of strong interaction and we have to
682: account for them in our analysis phenomenologically.
683: From comparison with the data we observe non-negligible
684: contribution from the HT terms
685: since account of such terms improves quality of the
686: fit (e.g. in the NNLO fit the value of $\chi^2$ rises by 330, if we fix the
687: HT terms at 0). At the same time the observed HT terms can come
688: just from the possible defects of the fitted model, in particular due to
689: inaccount of the HO QCD corrections.
690: Indeed, with the inclusion of the NLO correction
691: in the analysis of data on the $\nu N$ DIS the observed
692: HT terms decrease and eventually vanish in the NNLO~\cite{Kataev:1999bp}.
693: We also observe decrease of the HT terms with the pQCD order, but they do
694: not vanish completely in our case (see Fig.\ref{fig:ht} and
695: Table\ref{tab:ht}).
696: Extrapolation of the LO-NLO-NNLO results for the HT terms
697: allows to expect that they should not vanish in the NNNLO also.
698: This is in line with the conclusion of Ref.~\cite{Alekhin:1999kt}
699: that the HO corrections can successfully simulate power behavior
700: in narrow region of $x$ close to 0.1 only. This is also in agreement
701: with the results of Ref.~\cite{Schaefer:2001uh} (the effects of soft gluon
702: resummation considered in Ref.~\cite{Schaefer:2001uh}
703: are important at $x\gtrsim 0.8$ only
704: and cannot further decrease the value of HT terms in our case).
705: We see no contradiction between our results
706: and the results of Ref.~\cite{Kataev:1999bp} in view of
707: large errors in the HT terms extracted from the neutrino data, but
708: do not support the conclusion about vanishing of the HT terms in the NNLO.
709: The obtained HT contribution to $F_2$ is maximal at $x\sim 0.6$
710: and at $Q^2=5~{\rm GeV}^2$ is $\sim 10\%$ of the LT term. This is much
711: larger than the value of the relative experimental error in the
712: $F_2$ measured in this region and hence the account of the
713: HT terms is indeed important.
714:
715: \begin{figure}
716: \centerline{\epsfig{file=ht.ps,width=14cm,height=12cm}}
717: \caption{The HT contributions to the
718: proton structure functions $F_2$ (upper panel)
719: and the nucleon structure function
720: $F_{\rm L}$ (lower panel) obtained in the different orders of pQCD.
721: For better view points are shifted to left and right along the $x$-axis.}
722: \label{fig:ht}
723: \end{figure}
724:
725: \begin{table}
726: \begin{center}
727: \caption{Fitted coefficients of the
728: HT contributions to the structure functions
729: $F_{\rm 2,L}$ in the NNLO}
730: \vspace{0.4cm}
731: \begin{tabular}{cccc}
732: $x$ & $H_2^p(x)$ & $H^N_{\rm L}(x)$ \\ \hline
733: 0. & $-0.034\pm0.022$ & $0.234 \pm 0.037$ \\
734: 0.1 & $-0.056\pm0.017$ & $0.042 \pm 0.021$ \\
735: 0.2 & $-0.019\pm0.011$ & $0.055 \pm 0.021$ \\
736: 0.3 & $-0.003\pm0.010$ & $0.072 \pm 0.018$ \\
737: 0.4 & $0.0077\pm0.0098$ & $0.002 \pm 0.017$ \\
738: 0.5 & $0.0299\pm0.0082$ & $0.0138 \pm 0.0087$ \\
739: 0.6 & $0.0469\pm0.0077$ & $0.0060 \pm 0.0091$ \\
740: 0.7 & $0.0447\pm0.0062$ & $0.0233 \pm 0.0063$ \\
741: 0.8 & $0.0398\pm0.0065$ & $0.026 \pm 0.012$ \\
742: \end{tabular}
743: \end{center}
744: \label{tab:ht}
745: \end{table}
746:
747: \begin{table}
748: \begin{center}
749: \caption{Values of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ obtained in different
750: orders of pQCD.}
751: \vspace{0.4cm}
752: \begin{tabular}{cc}
753: LO& $0.1301\pm0.0026 ({\rm exp})$ \\
754: NLO & $0.1171\pm0.0015 ({\rm exp})$ \\
755: NNLO & $0.1143\pm0.0014 ({\rm exp})$ \\
756: \end{tabular}
757: \end{center}
758: \label{tab:als}
759: \end{table}
760:
761: Values of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})$ obtained in different orders of pQCD
762: are given in Table~\ref{tab:als}. For comparison
763: in the NNLO analysis of the existing data for DIS
764: of charged leptons off proton the value of
765: $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1166\pm0.0009~({\rm exp})$ was obtained
766: \cite{Santiago:2001mh}. This value is comparable with our result, but
767: one is to note that, despite the low $Q$ data were used in the fit,
768: the analysis of Ref.~\cite{Santiago:2001mh}
769: was performed with the HT terms fixed at zero.
770: Meanwhile the values of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ and $H_2$ at large $x$
771: are strongly anti-correlated.
772: From the trial fit with the constraint $H_{2,\rm L}=0$ we obtain
773: the value of $\alpha_{\rm s}(M_{\rm Z})=0.1215\pm 0.0003~({\rm exp})$, i.e.
774: their value is much larger and their error is much smaller
775: than in the fit with the HT terms fitted. From this comparison
776: we conclude that in fact our result for $\alpha_{\rm s}$ is in disagreement
777: with the result of Ref.~\cite{Santiago:2001mh}.
778: In addition, value of $\alpha_{\rm s}$ obtained in
779: the analysis of Ref.~\cite{Santiago:2001mh} rises from the NLO to the NNLO,
780: in contrast with our results.
781:
782: \section{Comparison with other parameterizations}
783:
784: Our NLO PDFs evolved in the VFN scheme
785: are compared to the recent CTEQ and MRST parameterizations in
786: Fig.~\ref{fig:pdfcomp}. The comparison is made
787: at $Q^2=100~{\rm GeV}^2$, which is the lowest scale
788: for the hard processes at the hadron colliders. At this scale we observe
789: the largest deviations of our PDFs from the CTEQ gluon distribution
790: at large $x$, the MRST gluon distribution at small $x$, and the
791: quark distribution of both groups at small $x$.
792: The observed differences in particular can be
793: due to the data on Drell-Yan process and jet production
794: were used in the CTEQ and MRST analysis.
795: To clarify this point thorough analysis of universality of the PDFs
796: in different processes is necessary, but
797: any way these differences can have impact on
798: the calculated cross sections of hard processes
799: at the hadron collider, e.g. on the
800: K-factor for the Higgs boson production.
801: The discrepancy with the MRST gluon distribution, which is the lowest of
802: the three considered PDFs sets, is especially important
803: since at small $x$ it gets negative at small $Q$.
804: At larger $Q$ the difference between the different PDFs sets
805: is smaller due to focusing properties of the QCD evolution \cite{DeRujula:rf}.
806:
807: \begin{figure}
808: \centerline{\epsfig{file=pdfcomp.ps,width=14cm,height=14cm}}
809: \caption{One-standard-deviation
810: bands for our NLO PDFs evolved in the VFN scheme
811: (full lines) compared to the MRST2001 (dashes) and CTEQ6 (dotes) PDFs.}
812: \label{fig:pdfcomp}
813: \end{figure}
814:
815: Recently the CTEQ collaboration estimated the errors in their PDFs
816: and we can compare those estimates with the errors in our PDFs.
817: The comparison cannot be completely sensible since
818: due to technical difficulties CTEQ did not take into
819: account the impact of the normalization errors in data.
820: Indeed, the account of normalization errors
821: essentially increase the point-to-point correlations for
822: many subsets and leads to amplification of the numerical instability of the
823: calculations. The value of $\Delta R$, which is indicator
824: of these correlations (see Sec.\ref{sec:pdfexp}), rises
825: essentially if normalization errors are included into the covariance matrix.
826: In particular, for the BCDMS data $\Delta R$ is 0.68/0.29 with/without
827: normalization errors taken into account.
828: Meanwhile account of the normalization errors leads to increase of
829: the PDFs uncertainties up to factor of 5 (see Fig.\ref{fig:pdfsys}).
830: In the analysis of CTEQ
831: the value of $\chi^2/NDP$ for some data subsets deviates
832: off 1 much more than this is statistically allowed.
833: These fluctuations may be caused by several reasons, including
834: inaccuracies in the
835: model of data, such as inaccount of the HT terms, the target
836: mass corrections, the nuclear corrections, and the HO QCD corrections.
837: To avoid this problem CTEQ scaled their PDFs errors by the
838: ``tolerance'' factor, which was selected equal to 10 in order to provide
839: comparability of all data subsets. Effectively, the application of such
840: tolerance factor leads to the crude account of all sources
841: of uncertainties, including theoretical ones, since
842: the scaled errors cover the total range of possible variation of the
843: fitted parameters. In our analysis we need not introduce
844: the tolerance factor since deviations of $\chi^2/NDP$
845: for separate data subsets off 1 fit to the possible
846: statistical fluctuations (see Table~\ref{tab:chi}).
847: The errors in CTEQ6 PDFs are compared to ours in Fig.~\ref{fig:err}.
848: For all PDFs, excluding the sea quarks distribution at $x\sim 0.3$
849: the CTEQ PDFs errors are larger than ours.
850: The difference is especially pronounced for the gluon and sea
851: distributions at small $x$ and for the
852: $u$- and $d$-quark distributions at large $x$.
853: From this comparison follows that use of the variety of data for the PDFs
854: extraction not necessarily leads to the decrease of the PDFs errors
855: since improvement in experimental accuracy can be accompanied
856: by the growth of theoretical errors (at least one is to take care
857: about accurate estimation of the later).
858: \begin{figure}
859: \centerline{\epsfig{file=pmom.ps,width=14cm,height=9cm}}
860: \caption{One-standard-deviation bands for the $Q$-dependence of the
861: momentum carried by different parton species ($\bar q$ reads
862: sum of the anti-quark distributions).}
863: \label{fig:pmom}
864: \end{figure}
865:
866: \section {Access to the PDFs}
867:
868: \begin{figure}
869: \centerline{\epsfig{file=lum.ps,width=14cm,height=14cm}}
870: \caption{The dependence of
871: parton-parton luminosities for the LHC (full curves)
872: and the Fermilab collider (dashes) on the produced mass $M$
873: (${\rm qq}:~L_{\rm uu}+L_{\rm dd}+L_{\rm du};~
874: {\rm q\bar q}:~L_{\rm u \bar d}+L_{\rm d \bar u};~
875: {\rm (q+\bar q)G}:~L_{\rm uG}+L_{\rm \bar uG}+L_{\rm dG}+L_{\rm \bar dG}$).}
876: \label{fig:lum}
877: \end{figure}
878:
879: The PDFs obtained in our analysis are available through
880: the WWW page\footnote{http://sirius.ihep.su/$\tilde{~}$alekhin/pdfa02/}.
881: We placed in this page the PDFs generated
882: in the LO, NLO, and NNLO; in the VFN and FFN schemes, including special
883: sets with shifted values of the $c$-quark mass and the sea suppression
884: factor to allow account of the corresponding theoretical uncertainties in PDFs.
885: The PDFs are supplied by the experimental uncertainties, which
886: can be conveniently taken into account in the calculation.
887: This can be performed both using propagation error formula based on the
888: PDFs derivatives and by generating random PDFs. The later way is
889: most convenient in the Monte-Carlo calculations and was adopted in
890: Les Houches interface for the PDFs with uncertainties \cite{Giele:2002hx}.
891: The $1\sigma$ bands for the first Mellin moments
892: of the parton distributions at different $Q^2$ calculated using this code
893: are given in Fig.\ref{fig:pmom}. The typical uncertainties in
894: the momentum carried by different species is generally less
895: than 0.01, being the largest for the gluon distribution.
896: The experimental errors in typical parton luminosities $L$
897: for the antiproton-proton collisions at $\sqrt{s}=2~{\rm TeV}$
898: (Fermilab collider) and the proton-proton
899: collisions at $\sqrt{s}=14~{\rm TeV}$
900: (LHC collider) are given in Fig.\ref{fig:lum}.
901: In the kinematical range relevant for the studies of hard processes
902: the relative errors in parton luminosities for the LHC are in the
903: range of $1\div 20$\%; for the Fermilab collider they
904: are comparable with the LHC ones at $M\lesssim~100~{\rm GeV}$
905: and are much larger at $M\gtrsim 100~{\rm GeV}$.
906: The uncertainty in $W$-boson production
907: cross section due to errors in PDFs is
908: $\sim 2$\% for the both colliders; for the Higgs boson
909: production cross section it is $\sim 2$\% for the LHC
910: and varies from 2\% to 10\% for the Fermilab collider under variation of
911: the Higgs boson mass from $100~{\rm GeV}$ to $300~{\rm GeV}$.
912:
913: \section{Conclusion}
914:
915: The PDFs extracted from the DIS data only are precise enough:
916: The estimated uncertainties in the parton luminosities
917: including all sources of experimental errors in data
918: are $\lesssim 20\%$ in the kinematical region feasible at
919: the LHC collider and $\lesssim 60\%$ at the Fermilab collider.
920: The theoretical errors in PDFs are under control and generally do not exceed
921: experimental ones, therefore the DIS PDFs can be used for
922: conclusive searches of deviation from the Standard Model
923: in other processes and/or checks of the universality of PDFs.
924:
925: {\bf Acknowledgments}
926:
927: I am indebted to E.~Boos, M.~Botje, W.~Giele, A.~Kataev,
928: T.~Sjostrand, W.K.~Tung, and A.~Vogt for stimulating discussions.
929: The work was supported by the RFBR grant 00-02-17432.
930:
931: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
932:
933: \bibitem{Barone:1999yv}
934: V.~Barone, C.~Pascaud and F.~Zomer,
935: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 12}, 243 (2000)
936: [arXiv:hep-ph/9907512].
937: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9907512;%%
938:
939: \bibitem{Botje:1999dj}
940: M.~Botje,
941: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 14}, 285 (2000)
942: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912439].
943: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912439;%%
944:
945: \bibitem{Alekhin:2001ch}
946: S.~Alekhin, Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 10} (1999) 395
947: [arXiv:hep-ph/9611213];\\
948: S.~I.~Alekhin,
949: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 63} (2001) 094022
950: [hep-ph/0011002].
951: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0011002;%%
952:
953: \bibitem{Aid:1996au}
954: S.~Aid {\it et al.} [H1 Collaboration],
955: Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf B470}, 3 (1996)
956: [hep-ex/9603004].
957:
958: \bibitem{Derrick:1996hn}
959: M.~Derrick {\it et al.} [ZEUS Collaboration],
960: Z.\ Phys.\ {\bf C72}, 399 (1996)
961: [hep-ex/9607002].
962:
963: \bibitem{Adloff:2000qk}
964: C.~Adloff {\it et al.} [H1 Collaboration],
965: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21}, 33 (2001)
966: [arXiv:hep-ex/0012053].
967: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0012053;%%
968:
969: \bibitem{Chekanov:2001qu}
970: S.~Chekanov {\it et al.} [ZEUS Collaboration],
971: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 21}, 443 (2001)
972: [arXiv:hep-ex/0105090].
973: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0105090;%%
974:
975: \bibitem{Retey:2000nq}
976: A.~Retey and J.~A.~Vermaseren,
977: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 604}, 281 (2001)
978: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007294].
979: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007294;%%
980:
981: \bibitem{vanNeerven:2000wp}
982: W.~L.~van Neerven and A.~Vogt,
983: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 490}, 111 (2000)
984: [arXiv:hep-ph/0007362].
985: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0007362;%%
986:
987: \bibitem{Alekhin:2001ih}
988: S.~I.~Alekhin,
989: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 519}, 57 (2001)
990: [arXiv:hep-ph/0107197].
991: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0107197;%%
992:
993: \bibitem{Pumplin:2002vw}
994: J.~Pumplin, D.~R.~Stump, J.~Huston, H.~L.~Lai, P.~Nadolsky and W.~K.~Tung,
995: [arXiv:hep-ph/0201195].
996: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0201195;%%
997:
998: \bibitem{Martin:2001es}
999: A.~D.~Martin, R.~G.~Roberts, W.~J.~Stirling and R.~S.~Thorne,
1000: [arXiv:hep-ph/0110215].
1001: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0110215;%%
1002:
1003: \bibitem{Adams:1999sx}
1004: T.~Adams {\it et al.} [NuTeV Collaboration],
1005: arXiv:hep-ex/9906037.
1006: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9906037;%%
1007:
1008: \bibitem{Giele:2002hx}
1009: W.~Giele {\it et al.},
1010: arXiv:hep-ph/0204316.
1011: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0204316;%%
1012:
1013: \bibitem{Alekhin:2000es}
1014: S.~I.~Alekhin,
1015: arXiv:hep-ex/0005042.
1016: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 0005042;%%
1017:
1018: \bibitem{Adloff:1999ah}
1019: C.~Adloff {\it et al.} [H1 Collaboration],
1020: Eur.\ Phys.\ J.\ C {\bf 13}, 609 (2000)
1021: [arXiv:hep-ex/9908059].
1022: %%CITATION = HEP-EX 9908059;%%
1023:
1024: \bibitem{Adams:1996gu}
1025: M.~R.~Adams {\it et al.} [E665 Collaboration],
1026: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 54}, 3006 (1996).
1027: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D54,3006;%%
1028:
1029: \bibitem{Witten:bh}
1030: E.~Witten,
1031: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 104} (1976) 445.
1032:
1033: \bibitem{Laenen:1992xs}
1034: E.~Laenen, S.~Riemersma, J.~Smith and W.~L.~van Neerven,
1035: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 392} (1993) 229.
1036:
1037: \bibitem{Shifman:1977yb}
1038: M.~A.~Shifman, A.~I.~Vainshtein and V.~I.~Zakharov,
1039: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 136} (1978) 157
1040: [Yad.\ Fiz.\ {\bf 27} (1978) 455].
1041: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B136,157;%%
1042:
1043: \bibitem{Collins:mp}
1044: J.~C.~Collins and W.~K.~Tung,
1045: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 278} (1986) 934.
1046:
1047: \bibitem{Gluck:1993dp}
1048: M.~Gluck, E.~Reya and M.~Stratmann,
1049: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 422} (1994) 37.
1050: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B422,37;%%
1051:
1052: \bibitem{AKL}
1053: S.~Alekhin, S.~Kulagin, S.~Luiti, in preparation.
1054:
1055: %\cite{Wilson:zs}
1056: \bibitem{Wilson:zs}
1057: K.~G.~Wilson,
1058: Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf 179} (1969) 1499.
1059: %%CITATION = PHRVA,179,1499;%%
1060:
1061: %\cite{Kataev:1999bp}
1062: \bibitem{Kataev:1999bp}
1063: A.~L.~Kataev, G.~Parente and A.~V.~Sidorov,
1064: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 573} (2000) 405
1065: [arXiv:hep-ph/9905310].
1066: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9905310;%%
1067:
1068: %\cite{Alekhin:1999kt}
1069: \bibitem{Alekhin:1999kt}
1070: S.~I.~Alekhin,
1071: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 488} (2000) 187
1072: [arXiv:hep-ph/9912484].
1073: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 9912484;%%
1074:
1075: \bibitem{Schaefer:2001uh}
1076: S.~Schaefer, A.~Schafer and M.~Stratmann,
1077: Phys.\ Lett.\ B {\bf 514}, 284 (2001)
1078: [arXiv:hep-ph/0105174].
1079: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0105174;%%
1080:
1081: \bibitem{Santiago:2001mh}
1082: J.~Santiago and F.~J.~Yndurain,
1083: Nucl.\ Phys.\ B {\bf 611} (2001) 447
1084: [arXiv:hep-ph/0102247].
1085: %%CITATION = HEP-PH 0102247;%%
1086:
1087: \bibitem{DeRujula:rf}
1088: A.~De Rujula, S.~L.~Glashow, H.~D.~Politzer, S.~B.~Treiman,
1089: F.~Wilczek and A.~Zee,
1090: Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 10} (1974) 1649.
1091: %%CITATION = PHRVA,D10,1649;%%
1092:
1093: \end{thebibliography}
1094:
1095: \end{document}
1096:
1097:
1098: